User talk:Peacemaker67

I recently changed my Wikipedia email, so if we've been emailing each other and you don't get a response, send a fresh one via the link

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the Tokyo war crimes trials

[may have all been dealt with: thank you for all that you do]. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fair enough as you say it's a matter of editorial opinion if there is a need to link to the class when there is a separate article on the individual ship. Ideally the individual article should have a design and description section which makes linking to the class article redundant, in this case Turbine does but Enrico Cosenz doesn't but don't you think saying "the Turbine-class destroyer Turbine " seems a little clumsy? Generally we don't include a link to the class article when an individual article exists but there is a general exception on Italian ships as until recently only the class article existed so that was the only way for a reader to obtain more information on the individual ship mentioned. I don't see the need for that exception now, would you advocate adding links to the class on all articles - the Bismarck class battleship Bismarck on Last battle of the Bismarck for example? Not important to me so I will leave your reversion as is but I would welcome your comments and possible reconsideration Lyndaship (talk) 08:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Lyndaship. Actually I don't find linking the ship class and ship clumsy, I find it informative for the reader, otherwise why would I include it? Granted, in the case of a few famous ships such as the Bismarck, the eponymous class of the name ship might be a little redundant, but I would still use "Bismarck-class battleship Tirpitz", because it provides the information that the Tirpitz was the sister ship of the Bismarck and provides a direct link to the class article. Given we have name ships like Bismarck and classes without name ships like the Flower-class corvettes, I see no reason why I shouldn't include it. As for what "we" include or not in ship articles, or what exceptions exist in ship articles in general, that is almost always a matter of opinion. I have now written about thirty FA class and ship articles over a period of twelve years, and I am still regularly told on WP that "we" don't do things a certain way. However, I have found that it is rare for an editor that claims such a practice or exception to be able to point to any meaningful community consensus it exists. It might exist in your editing practice, but that doesn't mean it has to exist in mine. This is not about "ownership" it is about editorial discretion and not fixing things that aren't broken. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for response. We obviously disagree but I'll leave it be 07:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tim Hughes (soldier) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ykraps -- Ykraps (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider this a pro-Ustase username? The editor has made some edits that are not obviously disruptive, but the name and topics chosen give me pause. (t · c) buidhe 13:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G’day buidhe. Using NDH in a user name is akin to putting Fascista or NSDAP in a user name. It is highly problematic IMHO, and probably shouldn’t be permitted under a couple of provisions of WP:DISRUPTNAME, especially as it is likely to provoke/offend Serbs by appearing to glorify the NDH, which murdered hundreds of thousands of Serbs through its policies. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]